User talk:31dot/Archive2010
Why I don't use Preview, but do multiple edits I cannot use the Preview button instead of doing multiple edits. That is because I often decide to do an edit, then change my mind later and decide to do another edit. Also, I usually read the article, and while reading it, I also proofread it. I cannot read the article in Preview mode; it is not comfortable. Sorry if this causes you some minor inconvenience. -- 07:36, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :I would suggest that you find a way to become comfortable with it, as it exists precisely to see what something looks like in case you change your mind. I notice that it took you four edits just to write your message, Preview would have helped you here. I'm not sure how it is any more difficult to read the article in Preview than after you save your edit- they look the same. :No one can make you do it, but if you do not others will comment on it as well.--31dot 10:46, January 26, 2010 (UTC) Image order RE: revert. There is no policy, guideline or concensus on which image gets priority. --Alan 13:59, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :Okay, I know it's been discussed somewhere, which I will try to find..........but anyway, are you saying it doesn't make sense to have the most recent image first?--31dot 14:13, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not sure where that discussion is- it might have had to do with simply having more than one image in the sidebar but I know this subject or something similar has been mentioned before. I guess I just saw no reason to change it from the way it was- but since I can't prove what I've said I changed it back.--31dot 14:32, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::At the very least, the fact that all TOS sidebars look alike has been construed as implicit consensus in 2007 already: Template talk:Sidebar individual. I believe there are even earlier discussions than that. Having a different order just for TOS character has never made too much sense to me, but there you go. Maybe another thing to discuss while we're scrutinizing sidebars already. -- Cid Highwind 14:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I know between Morder and I, we had switched all the TOS images to having the most recent one on top, and Morder had mentioned that it was discussed before as well, so he might know where. This should definitely be discussed now though, since it keeps coming up and we've put pretty much everything else on the table anyways. - 14:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC) PfD for article templates In a way, that covered all of the article templates. So, the intent was for the discussion to expand to those (assuming consensus was reached). Just FYI. -- sulfur 02:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :That's cool. Cid had said he was going to bring them up individually, which I took to mean seperate pages. But a simple expansion is better. :) --31dot 11:11, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Meant to say that I'm not exactly sure what those pages might be, but I did un-archive the page so they can be brought up.--31dot 11:22, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Deletion Well, whatever. I only created it because I couldn't remember Carey's first name, and because the search feature on Memory Alpha is so poor, I had a very hard time finding the article on him without it.--Antodav 02:28, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for your comment - I just wanted to inform you that I removed each quote in a separate edit on purpose. The purpose was that of letting everyone feel free to revert specific edits if there's any good reason. Yet I agree that maybe that wasn't the right choice considering the increasing size of the database. I think I'll opt for some sort of happy medium the next time I'll edit an article. Landis Hello, I am the actress Deborah Landis and I was trying to edit/correct the information here on me because I was originally hired as a Cairn with a line. I did speak but it was cut in editing. Also I no longer go by the other name of Valerie Ryan. If I did something wrong I am sorry , but I thought I was free to correct incorrect, information, Deborah Landis :Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding. I will change the information as you have stated. I think that it was reverted by the other users because no explanation was given in the edit summary or on the article's talk page (which you might not have been aware of) I would suggest that any further discussion about it take place there. Again, my apologies. --31dot 23:45, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Merging I was wondering if you could give me some help with this. I've done a couple of test merges following the instructions . While the page histories seem to merge OK, the old pages text ends up as the one on the page after the merge, which is not what is suppose to happen, I think. - 00:39, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :If you've done what I think :) you need to go back into the history and restore the version that you want. If you entered the text being merged before the merge, you will want to find that edit and save it. It will warn you you are editing an old version(since it's not the most current) but that's what you want.--31dot 00:43, March 25, 2010 (UTC) I though as much. Just making sure since I don't remember seeing anyone else do it like that, but I guess if it works, don't fix it. Thanks. :) - 00:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :Sulfur explained it to me that way, and just changed the Help:Merge page to match, so it's just starting to make its way around. It's not you. :) --31dot 01:00, March 25, 2010 (UTC) new at this thankyou for your feedback - I'm new and very much estranged to the order of things on wikia regarding "talk pages" etc - i thought it was for commentary, but if you have any suggestions where I can submit my personal reviews I'm open to them, thanks! sorry, this is the only way I could find how to write back to you – Steph6n 10:47, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Dipute process? I do not believe my comment about the mic boom constitutes nitpicking. Is there an admin I can appeal to? :You are already doing so, as I am one. Anyway, if you wish you can discuss it on the talk page for the article. As you will see, there is already a section about this comment. I will say that as a community we made a decision that production errors such as boom mike appearances were nitpicks and not noteworthy, unless such errors have been discussed by a member of the cast or crew. I would encourage you to review the policy on nitpicks for more information.--31dot 22:59, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Recommendation of Fan Forum? Can you please recommend an appropriate fan forum for posting a "wish list" related to the Star Trek sequel due out in 2012? Many sincere thanks - Winn cochrane 18:28, April 6, 2010 (UTC) :TrekBBS is likely the best outlet. I believe that they already have a forum for that. -- sulfur 18:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia links Star Trek episode articles should not link to wikipedia. There is no way the Wikipedia article would be more detailed, at least it shouldn't. Other topics that have non-Trek aspects may have Wikipedia links, but not every page should have a Wikipedia link. This discussion has occurred before, but I haven't found it. --bp 18:46, April 6, 2010 (UTC) :I will keep an eye out for this prior discussion as well, but as of right now I don't see the harm in having such a link, although if most episodes don't have them then we probably shouldn't. I've skimmed some episodes and notice that it seems to be mostly DS9 episodes that have them- some VOY episodes have StarTrek.com links as well. If we don't have wikipedia then we shouldn't have that, either.--31dot 18:54, April 6, 2010 (UTC) There have been a few discussions about links to scripts or transcripts, StarTrek.com, and Wikipedia. It seems that some episode pages have had WP links added recently with MB links. The WP links are the easiest to justify excluding, since wikipedia is more general than this Star Trek wiki, there should never be more information there than exists here, for episodes, and most Trek topics that are not real topics. --bp 18:59, April 6, 2010 (UTC) TOS Nitpicks Thanks for getting those, I was just about to revert the edits myself. Especially the last one makes me wonder whether there's some Repository of Silly TOS Background Notes somewhere all these people draw from...– Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:59, April 19, 2010 (UTC) :There could be.... ;) --31dot 08:06, April 19, 2010 (UTC) I read it backwards... ...but he can't spell. :) As an aside User:Redrom is probably supposed to be my name backwards... — Morder (talk) 23:42, April 23, 2010 (UTC) :LOL. I guess mine would be tod13.........--31dot 23:50, April 23, 2010 (UTC) Doug Drexler's blog link Moved it where? I thought it was valuable info. There's far too much to post. :It is valuable, which is why I moved it to its own section, "External Link". Unless there is going to be some Story or Production information included, simply having a link is not such information in and of itself.--31dot 15:15, May 1, 2010 (UTC) About Shatner Follow up on the previous article, has Shatner been seen (interviewed) on the DVD of Voyager or Enterprise? I have the DVD of TNG and DS9 and I didn't recall him being interviewed. :I don't believe he was; nothing included on the DVDs of Enterprise, I think.--31dot 22:39, May 6, 2010 (UTC) Images Are we allowed to take images directly from TrekCore? Is there any copyright issue taking images from another website, or is it fair use since they come directly from the episodes? -Angry Future Romulan 21:32, May 7, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not entirely sure- if the images are from episodes/movies then they don't own them either, so they can't claim the copyright; but I don't know how the source being another party affects the situation. Probably Cid, Sulfur, or Shran would know a little better than I would.--31dot 21:36, May 7, 2010 (UTC) Re: Deleted time stamp Sorry, I was unaware I deleted one. Will (Talk - ) 00:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Assimilation I noticed that you reverted the edits I made last night. Care to explain why? ' 23:46, May 13, 2010 (UTC)' :Because it was speculation, which is not permitted in articles.--31dot 23:50, May 13, 2010 (UTC) IAMD Update Hi, 31dot. I see you conditionally supported the removal of featured article last year, on the condition that the summary be made shorter. I'd therefore like to let you know that not only has the summary been considerably shortened but also a lot more background info has been added to the article, which has been duly renominated for FA status. --Defiant 04:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks for the update. :) --31dot 09:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC) Auction Here is the url: http://www.propworx.com/star-trek-auction-catalog for the link to the auction. You will need an Adobe Acrobat reader for the document itself.– Throwback 04:48, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Tense I think it's funny you brought this up because stars can also be destroyed or blown up. That policy always seemed odd to me that stars are considered eternal. We could probably use a slight text change to explain it better. :) — Morder (talk) 12:43, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, we know that. That POV discussion lasted almost 8 months all told. The current POV wording was the best compromise that we could come up with, despite having a star blown up in Generations. *sigh* -- sulfur 12:46, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::It's funny- I thought of that after I wrote it, and thought about changing my comment, but figured that user would figure it out(you guys just beat him). Technically, even the entire universe is not eternal (discussed in ) so it seems we have to draw a line somewhere- we should probably leave the gist of the comment alone, but maybe reword it slightly. When I have some time I might review that original, lengthy discussion.--31dot 12:58, June 14, 2010 (UTC) Who is Wikia?. Is he a user here on Memory Alpha.--TyphussJediVader 00:00, June 15, 2010 (UTC) :It's a Wikia-wide bot. -- sulfur 03:04, June 15, 2010 (UTC) New User I am new to wiki and I never cited anything before. I made the mistake of uploading the image and now I messed everthing up. Can you give me tips on citing and how to fix it and avoid future mistakes? --Enterprise E-NCC-1701 01:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :I think most of what will help you can be found , (specifically the bottom portion) as this explains how the information on the image's page should be laid out. You may also want to review the image use policy to get a general idea of how images are used and can be uploaded.--31dot 01:41, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Thanks--Enterprise E-NCC-1701 03:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Bujold ref :See Talk:Performers considered for Star Trek roles#Bujold ref Re: Stop Obviously you did not see that I archived your message telling me to stop the name calling regarding Distantlycharmed. I "heard" you the first time and do not need you to post it a second time. Please do not reprimand me twice for the same stupid mistake. There was no need for you to post the same message twice due to you not looking at what I had archived on my talk page. --Nero210 02:08, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :31dot didn't do that, Morder did. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:43, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::I won't speak for Morder as to his motives, but most people will leave posts for a little longer before archiving them, and I could understand how someone might see archiving it immediately as a way to bury it so it is not viewed by others. I'm not saying that's what you did, and it is certainly your right to do so, only that I could understand someone else taking such an action.--31dot 08:32, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::After now having read your talk page, I see that Morder did explain. Keep in mind that just because you can archive something right away doesn't mean that you should, as such an action could be viewed in several ways, and also prevents others from commenting if need be. These pages are not just a means of communication, but a record of our conduct. If you insist on archving ASAP, I would suggest that you wait at least a day, and expand the message on your talk page to indicate this.--31dot 08:57, June 28, 2010 (UTC) USS Voyager block Hey 31dot, since you did the last block on the USS Voyager and since i want to avoid another edit war (nero has already threatened to revert edits no matter what) - could we somehow put this issue to vote or have some kind of community input on this? I think both nero and i agree that at this point probably community consensus might be better. I feel like i keep repeating myself and we talk past each other so it's time we took it a step further. I already suggested holding off on any kinds of edits and reverts until the community chimes in. Thanks.– Distantlycharmed 16:24, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :It looks like Archduk3 beat me to it, he has archived your discussion and posted a new section asking for each of your proposals and comment from others.--31dot 20:51, June 28, 2010 (UTC) No external links in articles Does this apply to all MA articles? I believe I have seen external links (especially to wikipedia) within many many articles in MA. I dont know if those just havent been discovered yet - but i just want to be sure on the rule. Thx.– Distantlycharmed 21:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :It applies to in-universe articles, as wikipedia is not a part of the Star Trek universe. I believe it's more acceptable in real world articles, although a seperate section is best so that it is clear that a link is external.--31dot 22:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC) Thank you Thank you your advice and help is very considerate.--Four of Five 23:05, June 30, 2010 (UTC)Four of Five Bob Sabaroff I can't find a way to email you, 31Dot, so I'm leaving this on your userpage. Bob Sabaroff was a dear, dear friend in LA days. One of my dearest and closest. I merely wrote on his page what he told me. Yes, perhaps it was uncited. But not relevant to Star Trek? I'd be very surprised if you knew Bob. :First and foremost, it's not cited. I might have left it if it had been. Even if I 100% believe you, this is an encyclopedia- there needs to be documentation to back up content in articles. This ensures they are not just made up- which I don't think you did, but I'm sure you could understand how someone could think so. We only have your word that it was what you were told- we need something more.--31dot 01:50, July 13, 2010 (UTC) 1312.4 My apologies for feeling the need to come to you with this 31dot, but I’ve just spent the last 20 minutes or so undoing 1312.4’s changes to a number of DS9 articles featuring links to the second Defiant, where he had changed them to the page of his creation. Is there a way to prevent this going forward, as it would seem he is determined to force his opinions onto everyone here? Perhaps the page USS Defiant (Sao Paulo) could be deleted, since the consensus that is in the process of being reached has veered away from his suggestion? – Commander Scott 07:48, 23 July, 2010 (BST) :If I looked at it right, those editing actions were before my earlier warning to him(on his talk page). I actually didn't notice those before, so thank you for the reversions. I think he hasn't done anything like that since then. As for the deletion of that page, we can probably do that once the issue is sorted out.--31dot 08:48, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think you're right come to think of it. Since I also asked him not to do it again on his user page, it looks like I owe him an apology since it's likely he already knows not to do it again following his chat with you. -- Commander Scott 10:17, 23 July, 2010 (BST) Sorry to knock on your door again 31dot, but I feel the need to lodge an official complaint about the way this guy has been sending rude and condescending remarks in my direction. Is there a way for me to do this, as I can no longer tolerate his personal comments? -- Commander Scott 18:33, July 26, 2010 (UTC) :Don't be sorry for contacting me, that's why we're all here. :) Regarding your subject, he just posted that he is no longer interested in responding to any posts on that discussion, so that should be the end of the back-and-forth. Just in case I will remind him of the no personal attacks policy. --31dot 18:50, July 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks mate, I'll keep my fingers crossed in the hope that he actually keeps his word. :-) -- Commander Scott 19:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Drex You Asked the following 13:55, August 7, 2010 31dot (Talk | contribs) (3,047 bytes) (Undo revision 1160378 by Gary Mintz (talk)why remove this?) (undo) Perhaps it is just me but there was no image of Drex there unless you clicked on it. So I placed a thumb nail type image there. Perhaps you can advise as to what the best Browser to use that will show images I have tried Firefox, Chrome and IE I still see no image of Drex unless I click on it. :Do not remove any images that won't display. That's a problem with Wikias servers, or something, and not this site or your browser. - 03:42, August 8, 2010 (UTC) Noted Thank you --Gary Mintz 03:46, August 8, 2010 (UTC) Changes I would just like to know why you deleted my edit of the intrepid class page? Admiralalexmann 11:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC) :I did not remove your entire edit, only the part about transphasic torpedoes, which are not standard armament of an Intrepid class ship.--31dot 11:49, August 10, 2010 (UTC) I simply said that with modification they could fire them, and since voyager returned they have been carried by the federation as a last resort. Admiralalexmann 14:06, August 10, 2010 (UTC) ::In regards to the transphasic torpedoes being carried by the Federation as a last resort, information from the novels doesn't apply to the articles here on Memory Alpha, Alex. That kind of information is for Memory Beta. At this point, (given that you’ve questioned me on my page as well) I think that you need to review the policies of this Wiki to ensure that you're fully versed on what information is deemed to be applicable. -- Commander Scott 14:20, August 10, 2010 (UTC) Nitpicking..? Hi there, I added an anachronism regarding a Citroen 2CV to Voyager's The Killing Game episode under Background, which you removed as nitpicking. I wonder why that is nitpicking whereas in the Background info for The Killing Game, Part II there's a similar entry regarding the US weapons used by the Resistance they stole from the Germans. Isn't this the same thing? Either my addition could've been left on the page or the weapons info can be removed from the other, IMO. Regards, DanteG : if I may - I have to agree. This is not nit-picking. It is interesting information. If we intend to be a comprehensive encyclopedia then why not mention things like they used a 1980 car in a WWII scenario. It's not like he is mentioning the different shades of uniform colors for main actors vs extras, which I happen to have read actually in background info sections. – Distantlycharmed 19:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC) ::To quote the nitpick policy, the following is not allowed: "Comparisons or discrepancies between the Star Trek universe and the real world". Saying that the fact a 1980s car was used in the production is out-of-place is a nitpick, as it was a holodeck simulation, maybe the program took some liberties with the technology used, or maybe the WWII in that reality was different, or whatever. Is in an anachronism in the real world? Yes. Is it in the Star Trek world? We don't know. ::The weapons information should be removed. Maybe they stole weapons that the Germans captured. --31dot 23:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :::Hi & thanks for explaining. About the weapons, my thoughts exactly, 31dot ;-) I'll make sure to read the policies more carefully next time! - DanteG 23:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC) Ok but the policy also states that sometimes nit pick is "difficult to define". What constitutes nit pick seems to be arbitrary sometimes. I also find the nit pick policy in my opinion to be flawed as it is depriving people/readers of interesting trivia for no apparent reason. I understand that adding stuff like "crew member is seen chewing gum" can get too much, but mentioning that they used a car from four decades later is interesting. I also found it interesting to read that Denise Crosby winked the audience goodbye in the background before her departure in the next episode, "Skin of Evil." Anyway I am not arguing or pushing for this particular entry to stay, but i just wanted to make this observation about nit pick as I keep seeing interesting info constantly removed because of that. – Distantlycharmed 00:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Crosby waving goodbye is not a nitpick- it is well cited that she did so deliberately. Anything that can be cited is valid for posting, including nitpicks. It is the uncited ones we are trying to avoid, and even the cited ones need to be worded carefully. I would suggest you review Memory Alpha talk:Nitpick for why the policy is the way it is. As with any policy, it is not written on an Optolythic data rod, so feel free to suggest changes.--31dot 00:45, August 16, 2010 (UTC) Warp field image Not personal, just a shitty size. Potentially decent image to use on the warp field article, but not at the size it was uploaded as. -- sulfur 12:16, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :Do you know the source? Or did someone just make it up?(in which case, what it is based on?)--31dot 12:20, August 24, 2010 (UTC) No idea to both. With the name used, it's almost certainly a thumbnail image from a wiki somewhere, possibly Wikipedia. In fact, it's from here. -- sulfur 12:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Deletion discussions What's your call on this? They did sign after all, and so far it's the only vote. - 17:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC) :Looks like it settled itself :) but I think the fact that they put a name does not matter- it's still an anon account. --31dot 19:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC) my article Just wondering why you axed my addition to the Archer page? What i wrote were intended only to apply to his missions on Enterprise, and not to what happened afterwards. camorite 12:11, 8-6-10 (UTC) :I reverted it mainly because it's not true as written- Archer's life was changed the moment the Kelvin was destroyed- the comment did not mention before or after. Such a comment is already at the top of the Star Trek: Enterprise page, where it should be, as it's the entire show, not just individual characters, that were(or were not) affected. If were were going to put the comment back in the Archer article, I would word it like the comment on the Enterprise page- replacing "Enterprise is the only production" with "Archer is the only lead character" or something similar.--31dot 11:34, September 6, 2010 (UTC) "My" Vandalism? This IP adress is a school's IP, so many users will be vandalising, and non-vandals will get the vandalising message. It's better to block the school's IP if it happens again. Sorry for the inconvenience tagged with shared IPs and stuff. 13:13, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :I don't entirely understand what you are discussing. According to my log I have never blocked that address.--31dot 00:59, September 8, 2010 (UTC) ::It's not always about blocking. Try looking at the talk page. -- sulfur 01:04, September 8, 2010 (UTC) :Ah thank you, I did not go back far enough. I had assumed it was something I'd done recently. I thought I had looked at that talk page but I probably got them mixed up.--31dot 01:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC) Thanks and past-tense question Dear 31dot, I posted the following on the Fourier analysis talk page, but then I realized I probably should have asked you here. Do you mind answering me there? It's incredibly hard for me to retype stuff on an iPod. :( Regards, --Cepstrum 14:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC) Congrats Congrats on 10,000 edits. -Angry Future Romulan 02:25, September 21, 2010 (UTC) Paxans I went with probably as they are never actually seen. Unless that green energy blob Troi thought she saw was one. which it probably was. their ability to possess Troi seems to support that.--Marhawkman 22:10, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :Can you point out the page/edit you are discussing?--31dot 22:20, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :Are you referring to the incite tag I put on a comment on the Paxan article two years ago? --31dot 22:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC) Non-humanoid_species when I added the Paxans I put a note about how they were "probably" non-corporeal.--Marhawkman 16:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :We shouldn't do "probably". A species either is or isn't corporeal. If we don't see them, then we shouldn't say one or the other. In this case, we should go with what we have seen.31dot 16:11, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, Actually thinking again we can't be certain we've seen them. The amorphous green energy was probably them, but we can't be sure. I guess leaving it the way it is is best.--Marhawkman 19:56, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Wait.... If they're a non-corporeal species wouldn't having them in both lists be redundant?--Marhawkman 19:59, September 30, 2010 (UTC) Photo 31dot: I am the author of the following edit to Bill Hickey's page: "Note: The photo on the last page of Robert Justman's "Inside Star trek" is from the 1975 Star Terk con in Philadelphia, NOT the New York con (which I also attended). Bill Hickey is shown on the left of the photo; on the right (obscured) is Brad Nelson. I am between them, in dark shirt. -Arthur T. Philadelphia.:" If any problem posting this, please advise. I am the person in the photo indicated. Bill cal attest to this. -Arthur T., Philadelphia, PA. :I would suggest that you contact User:Shran, who has communicated with others who have worked on Star Trek and will be able to confirm your statement. 31dot 19:29, October 1, 2010 (UTC) A newbie's request for advice/help Dear 31Dot, I have been trying to become a positive contributor here, though I admit I am learning as I go. User:Sulfur has tended to make immediate (ie, within a minute or two) changes, reverts, etc., to my edits. Most of the changes are extremely helpful and neutral (eg, relating to formatting issues). I've learned a lot just by seeing these changes. In several cases, however, I will attempt to start a discussion on the articles' talk pages, either informing what I'm doing, asking if we should do such-and-such, and the like. Unfortunately, in many of the subjective changes I've made, User:Sulfur will just undo them with little or no comment and never with an explanation on the talk page. I have asked that we could discuss such things on the talk page, even if it's just to let me know why my ideas are being shot down (for instance, I thought a lengthy article would benefit from sections, for it was already composed in natural breaks.) I understand that I should not expect to get my way, but I wish we could engage in dialogue on the talk pages when deciding subjective, unclear article edits (ie, those not falling under an MA policy). What do you suggest I do? I have requested that after undoing my changes we discuss on the talk page, but have not seemed to make headway. I feel as though, as kind and helpful as User:Sulfur is, I'm being followed around and continually having my edits undone with little or no explanation. It is very discouraging to me, for I already have a pretty fragile self-esteem. I'm considering quitting altogether if i can't have a dialogue on talk pages. Perhaps that is the intention: to drive people like I, who apparently am a bad editor, away from MA so to purify the quality of editors here. To be sure: in no way do I wish to engage in edit-wars or debates, and I'm prepared to accept the decisions of experienced admins. I just wish I could get a response on the talk page. Please advise. Thanks! --Cepstrum 11:56, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :I'd pretty much second what Cid Highwind said on your page. If you want to discuss a change to the article on the talk page- then do so. Most users (including Sulfur) are pretty good about responding if they do not indicate a reason for their change in the edit summary. 31dot 00:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Help Hey i got a message from you and it wont go away. worse i cant edit pages on other wikis with the message still up. please help. 15:37, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :I assume you are referring to the automated welcome message. I did not send it personally, but it attached my name as the last admin to make an edit. Once you view your talk page, the blue message box directing you there should go away.--31dot 17:57, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Past tense I just wanted to comment on your reverting my edits to the "Intruder alert" entry. It's interesting that each of the following alert signals use the present tense in one way or another: Red alert Yellow alert Blue alert Double red alert Battle stations If you're interested in making things consistent, you should probably have gone after the edits straying from the norm, rather than the other way around. :Seeing something done in one place does not mean it is correct. As you can see, the other articles have now been changed to past tense per MA:POV. If you disagree with the policy, I would suggest commenting there.--31dot 15:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC) I was only commenting on the hopelessness of the stated goal. As you can see, I've made a useful contribution while also expressing my annoyance. Without my "incorrect" edit, those articles would have remained inconsistent, perhaps indefinitely, only to be chronicled in the past tense when Memory Alpha ceases to exist ;-) :The next time I would suggest commenting on the relevant article's talk page, as the issue does not just involve me personally.--31dot 16:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC) Protecting pages It's best if you can let an admin not involved in the "edit war" protect the page. Just fyi. -- sulfur 19:01, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :Normally I do but I felt in this instance where the other party was making a blantantly incorrect edit that it would be OK. --31dot 19:07, October 25, 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the Welcome! Thanks for the welcome message! I will get my profile set up when I have more time to get it done right. I do have a question - how does one join the community? Take care! Themoodyblue 21:41, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Images without details... Just use on those. Adds the PNAs and some text. -- sulfur 11:35, November 9, 2010 (UTC) :Ah, didn't know about that one. Thanks --31dot 11:49, November 9, 2010 (UTC) It's actually a "left behind" from when we had the ability to auto-select licenses on uploads. 90% of people chose "none selected", which puts that template on the page. So I knocked out that template to combine all of the PNAs that are generally needed. Heh. Then we got rid of the license selection box, but the template stayed due to usefulness. :) -- sulfur 12:05, November 9, 2010 (UTC) Thanks 31dot, Thank you for trying to stick up for me. I know I am in error. I added a final response to the unfortunate discussion on Sulfur's talk page. I know you're a good, long-time admin. If you can offer any help/feedback/advice/tips to me, I'd appreciate a message (but on my talk page, preferably.) Thus far, only Defiant has offered both negative and positive feedback; I think he was just to try to make me feel better. So, if you're willing and can spare a few moments to assess whether I should indeed quit based on my contributions. (Please don't feel obligated, though!) Regards, --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 15:26, November 9, 2010 (UTC) Request for advice Hi, 31dot. Thank you for the helpful tips you've posted on my talk page. On it you indicated you'd be willing to help guide me along, if I ended up electing to stick around. Well, I did decide to continue trying to become a useful contributor to MA. I'd like to take advantage of that offer now, if I may. It concerns the discussion [[Talk:USS Voyager#Reversions to my prose|'here']]. The context: I had thought the article could use some significant prose/style improvements and grammar corrections. It's a long article and daunting task, so I started small. I then solicited feedback on my initial edits on the talk page. Nero210 responded, saying I should continue (I was debating about undertaking such a project, and I wanted to only if a consensus formed stating I should.) After little thought, I told him I would go ahead, albeit slowly. Soon after, Distantlycharmed made two edits (marked "minor") that essentially undermined the streamlined style I was attempting to incorporate, changing many things back to their original state. It had taken me a long time to change the writing, and I had had a major health crisis early that morning, which drained my energy and will to argue for preserving the new style. After seeing that DC was likely going to change back a lot of any further prose edits and upon realizing I simply hadn't the energy to discuss each change or even write any more myself anyway, I posted that, because she was going to be ensuring at least someone was willing to look after the article (made clear by her changing my edits), I decided to hold-off on rewriting the rest of the very long article. I was content knowing I'' didn't have to do more heavy lifting and that she would ensure the article would stay in decent and consistent shape (at first I was worried no one was paying attention to it closely, except for the omnipresent good Mr. Sulfur, of course! But he tends to keep his edits to bug fixes.) She then responded that I was behaving badly, that I wrote 20k worth of material insisting she not touch anything and that I demanded apologies from her (and from others in separate cases, something I was unaware of). I ''thought in my initial post I had tried to make it clear I had "no problems" at all but just hadn't the energy to engage in back-and-forth discussions about something ultimately as trivial as prose style (vis-á-vis content changes), especially because I was I'm sure no two editors would agree on (after all, there's no one "right" way – there isn't even an official standard of English grammar!) I was a little confused by her response (and actually, a little hurt – but maybe unjustly; I don't know), so I figured I must have misrepresented myself. I thus tried to respond with a rather lengthy note trying to clarify things and make it clear her edits caused me no worries. I'm very anxious to know: was I right to do so? Was my initial post that bad? (I'd hate to think that it was. I don't wish to hurt others or create conflict.) How should I have handled this? It's my first experience in which a fellow editor became upset and accused me of acting improperly based on editing and talking about an article. (By now I'm used to admins telling me I made logistical/technical/policy errors.) Please let me know your thoughts. I very much want to behave properly toward my fellow editors. It saddens me to think I caused another grief. How would have you handled it? Was my follow-up post the right thing to do, or should have I responded on her talk page, or even not responded at all? Please help me, if you are willing and can spare the time! Feel free to respond here, my talk page, or anywhere you think is best. Thank you. --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 14:02, November 13, 2010 (UTC) PS This is not an attempt to try to complain against Distantlycharmed or "go after her" by involving an admin. It's rather about my behavior. I evidently hurt her feelings, and I don't want to be doing that sort of thing to anyone, ever. MA is supposed to be a fun place for all, and I don't wish to create a negative experience for someone else. :( I'' certainly feel bad after reading her characterization of me. :There is a lot of info about this to sort through- but to start your initial post seemed fine.--31dot 23:11, November 13, 2010 (UTC) :I will also say that once the subject started to drift away from its intended subject(from discussing the merits of changes made in the article to discussing the manner in which you post) the conversation in that area should have moved to a personal talk page so that the article talk page could remain about discussing the article. That applies to both you and DC(who was out of line by saying you were 'whining') :The things that OuroborosCobra said were pretty much what I would have said.--31dot 23:35, November 13, 2010 (UTC) ''(Note: the following, posted 14:27, November 14, 2010 (UTC), was far too long and extraneous. I condensed it for brevity while trying to preserve its substance, along with inserting my new posting plan. The original is available [[User_Talk:Cepstrum/Removed#User talk: 31dot|'here']].) Ok, thank you for the info. I hate that I caused such mayhem. I actually don't mind having my edits reverted; my principal concern is not annoying others (something I've done in abundance thus far). Henceforth, I will try for short, relevant posts and stop the repetitive apologies. I feel so bad about the whole thing! :( --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 13:07, November 17, 2010 (UTC) "Phrase" vs "Idiom" Can you change your nomination over yonder to say "use of idioms" instead of "use of phrases"? DC has already gotten a bit...emotional on the article talk page when you kept calling it things other than an idiom, and I really don't want to see that discussion or the deletion nomination degrade into emotional text walls of 2+ kb in length over just that issue. You know it will, too. Just call it an idiom, he happens to be right that it is an idiom, and in this case I don't want to see a bee's nest needlessly kicked. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:30, November 23, 2010 (UTC) :Good point. Thank you. --31dot 11:35, November 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Ha....how childish. Wow. I'm still not a he though.– Distantlycharmed 17:46, November 23, 2010 (UTC) I apologize for getting your gender wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:52, November 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Ya, that and lotsa other things. – Distantlycharmed 18:09, November 23, 2010 (UTC) :::Apparently, you shouldn't be the one to go around and call other people "childish". Now, let's stop this here and now, before it gets ugly! -- Cid Highwind 18:14, November 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Well how about then shutting up and not talking shit about people so they dont feel inclined to respond. I didnt start this. – Distantlycharmed 18:32, November 23, 2010 (UTC) :How about taking this thing that doesn't involve me elsewhere, along with the unneccesary foul language?--31dot 02:19, November 24, 2010 (UTC) 31dot: can you help me with a logistical question? Hi again, 31dot. # I apologize again for those series of ridiculous, long, irrelevant, stupid posts of mine. Cid suggested I condense/remove them, leaving a note and a link to the original – see above for an example – on my archive page dedicated to preserving my silly ramblings (in case anyone wants to see what I said that provoked the respective responses). I've been working on it, but I see there's still one of mine on your page I should probably remove and summarize. At the least, be assured I've learned my lesson and will strive to stop that behavior! # Now, for my ''actual question:'' I've come across five "knockout gases" (viz., neurozine, axonol, anesthezine, neurazine, and anesthesia gas) dispersed throughout articles, and listed on both the chemical and drug categories. Because there are at least five such gases (maybe more; it's difficult to know without looking at every listed chemical/drug), and because they don't all cross-reference one another, I'd like to suggest adding a category for "incapacitating agents" (with possible redirects from similar terms). What's the best way to go about doing that? Add a comment on the chemicals' category page? Forum? An individual drug's talk page? It'd be convenient to be able to have a list of the various gases for comparison, at least IMO. Thanks for any help/advice you can provide. --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 14:17, November 24, 2010 (UTC) :Check out this discussion here. Also, you might want to check Anesthesia. -- sulfur 14:21, November 24, 2010 (UTC) ::I'll second that. :)--31dot 14:39, November 24, 2010 (UTC) Cool; thanks, guys. I dug into the whole thing a little and believe both the Anesthesia and drug articles could use significant expansion/improvement. That's in order before (I think) a new category suggestion. If I were to suggest a new category now, it'd probably be drug classes. It'd be nice if I and others could take the current, simple listing of the different classes in the drugs article and make a separate page for each class. There is plenty of info available to make articles for each class; the drug article could then have a "see X" at the beginning of each of its list of drug classes. Do you think that's a good idea? Should I even try to start such a huge project? I think it'd be great to have, but I don't want to invest my limited energy if you think it's a dumb idea. (I've never done something like that: ie, heavily expanding articles, creating new ones, etc.) I would appreciate your advice. (I've already done a little work on the anesthesia article and created my very first redirect! – gaseous to gas) --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 18:53, November 24, 2010 (UTC) Oh, this is a little out-of-place, but because Sulfur's here, I must ask: does he/do you prefer being called "Sulfur" or "sulfur"? ::Like with some things, I'd need to see an example of such an article before passing judgement. I would suggest possibly doing one such article and allow for comment by the community before delving into others.--31dot 02:32, November 25, 2010 (UTC) Transwarp Is the info i added about the excelsior crew evolving as in Threshold not correct, I am quite sure that it is. :It may make sense, however it is speculation, which is not permitted in articles. --31dot 23:37, November 25, 2010 (UTC) ::It doesn't make sense. The Excelsior transwarp was not said to be a "warp 10" drive. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:47, November 26, 2010 (UTC) "test" template This template is being removed. Please use in future, and when using it, please ensure that you "subst" it into the page, such as: . Thanks. -- sulfur 13:48, December 10, 2010 (UTC)